"Every utility in this program should review its pole inspection program."

By R. Bruce Wright, CPCU

You may be used to the idea that a guideline is just an opinion, a simple “rule of thumb,” that serves as one part of a decision making process, and is not a hard and fast rule on its own. In fact, this is the usual case. But from time to time guidelines are taken and transmogrified into “rules” in order to serve the ends of the re-interpreters. Something along these lines appears to be happening with the RUS pole decay guidelines.

Most of you are probably familiar with the fact that RUS publishes bulletins on a range of technical topics as advice to borrowers, and in practice, most co-ops follow those guidelines, whether they are current borrowers or not. One such bulletin, 1730B-121, a copy of which can be be accessed by clicking HERE. Included in that bulletin is a map of the US, dividing it up into 5 Pole Decay Zones, as well as a table with suggestions on how often to inspect poles, based on which decay zone in which a utility is located. Below are a reproduction of that map and a facsimile of the table.

Over the past decade of our work with this utility program, Synebar consultants have often been asked for our ideas on how often poles should be inspected. We typically reply not with an answer couched in terms of years, but instead by asking questions about each individual client’s goals, along with advice on how to decide on the the needed frequencies, once you test and measure in light of those goals, and adjust to maintain them. For a more detailed explanation of this approach, see the article Pole Inspection Guidelines (Or Not), published in the Jan-Feb-Mar, 2004 edition of RE-marks.

Unfortunately, while we still believe this is the right way for each unique utility to approach its own decision on pole testing frequency, it must also take into account external factors. One such factor is the creativity of the plaintiff’s bar, which is always alert to opportunities such as can be extracted from the abuse of these RUS “guidelines.” While the bulletin cited here is intended as a guide, and even starts its paragraph on pole inspection scheduling (¶ 3.2) by saying “If an ongoing maintenance program is not in place, the suggested timing” is shown in the table. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s attorneys are trying with some success to convince jurors that the RUS guidelines represent minimum standards, much like the National Electrical Safety Code. And, once this approach succeeds the first time, we can expect it to be used repeatedly as a new “theory of negligence” whenever a pole related incident occurs. Of course the primary theory of liability is, and remains, the duty to maintain a safe system. So, any time a pole fails, the owner has a potential problem, but if the RUS guidelines are twisted around until they become a minimum standard, it may provide one more opportunity for plaintiffs to assert grounds for greater compensation.

So, at this point, every utility in this program should review its pole inspection program. If it meets or exceeds the RUS guidelines and is effective in identifying poles requiring replacement, great. If it does not meet the guidelines, it is even more crucial to have a thoroughly documented, well thought-out rationale, supported by evidence and documentation, to back up the decisions that lead to the choice of frequency.

And, by the way, “times are hard, testing is costly” is not  such a rationale!